Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1968CriLJ836
C. Honniah, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant Sivaga Gowda challenges the correctness of the order of acquittal of the respondent T. Narayana, the Editor, Printer and Publisher of 'Mysore Patrika' of the offence under Section 500, Penal Code. Criminal proceeding against the respondent were Started on a complaint by Sivage Gowda, who was at the relevant time a student of the Maharaja'a College, Mysore, studying in the senior M.A. class, in the complaint Sivage Gowda alleged that the respondent had published in his news paper 'Mysore Patrika', D/- 5.9.63 and 21.9.63 a (statement against him, which was highly defamatory of him. According to the complainant, the defamatory statement was absolutely untrue and by publishing it, the accused had rendered himself liable to be punished under Section 500, Penal Code.2. The acts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are these: The complainant was a student at the material time studying of the senior M.A. class in Maharaja's College ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant20; AIR1969Mys20
1. On March 20, 1944 the defendant who is the appellant in this court executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 200 in favour of the plaintiff. It was provided by the mortgage deed that the mortgages who is the plaintiff should be in possession of the mortgaged property for a period of fifteen years, and that there could be a redemption after the expiry of that period. On June 30, 1959 the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, and the decree which he sought, after he was permitted to amend his plaint, was a decree for sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff made an allegation that the defendant never delivered possession of the mortgaged property to him, and that she was herself in wrongful possession. The defendant repudiated the truth of that allegation, but in her written statement the defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that it was not maintainable. It is not necessary to refer to the other contentions w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant323; AIR1968Mys323; (1967)2MysLJ85
(1) The appellant is a firm which manufactures soaps in Belgaum, and for such manufacture it used to bring into the limits of the Belgaum Municipal Borough castor oil and rosin. During the period between December 11, 1955 and April 23, 1956 it brought into the municipal limits rosin of the value of Rs. 60,817-6-0 and during the period between December 18, 1955 and April 4 1956 it brought 1,495 tins of caster oil. It was called upon to pay octroi on castor oil at Rs. 2-1-4 per cent of its value. The firm paid the octroi demanded under protest and instituted a suit against the Municipal Borough for the recovery of sum of Rs. 1,281-14-0 which, according to the firm, was the excess octroi collected. The court of first instance gave the firm the decree which it wanted, but that decree was reversed in the appeal preferred by the Municipal Borough. So the firm appeals.(2) Mr. Joshi appearing for the firm contends that both rosin and castor oil which the plaintiff brought into the limits of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant202; AIR1968Mys202; (1967)2MysLJ192
(1) This is a plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the District Judge who affirmed the decree of the court of first instance in the suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the final decree made in a mortgage suit on January 31, 1957 did not bind him. That final decree was made in a suit brought by defendants 1 and 2 who were the mortgagees, under a mortgage deed executed in the year 1948 by a certain Guddu Hengasu who was the yajamanthi of an aliyasanthana family and by defendants 3 to 11 who are her children or grandchildren, and others. On September 20, 1956 there was a preliminary decree which was followed up by a final decree for sale made on January 31, 1957. Meanwhile, Guddu Hengasu had died on October 13, 1956 and a final decree was made as if she was still alive. Defendants 1 and 2 executed the decree and brought the mortgaged properties to sale and purchased them on April 8, 1958. It was as a sequel to this that the suit out of which this second appeal arises was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Mys175; 1967CriLJ1350; ILR1967KAR1091; (1967)2MysLJ63
Santhosh. J.1. This is an appeal men miller Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Nipani Town against the order of acquitial of the six respondents. Accused 1 to 6, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chikodi. in C. C. No 987 of 19611 Kespon,dents 1 to 5 along with the absconding accused Kabir Maracair, wore charged with having committed offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act of 1962 and Rule 126 II (2) (ii) of the Defence of India Rules of 1962, and Section Section 23(1) (A) read with Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 Respondent 6 Accused 6 was charged with having aided and abetted accused 3 to 5 and absconding accused Kabir Maraeair in committing the said offences Thp learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents of all the charges. In this appeal, the legality and the correctness of the said acquittal is questioned by the appellant.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: On 17-9-196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant171; AIR1967Mys171
ORDER1. The circumstances of this case and the manner in which it has been dealt with are a little out of the ordinary.2. The question relates to tax payable by the petitioner under the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act. 1961 in respect of the months of January. February and March of 1962 and April and May of 1964. In respect of the first three months, it appears that he had deposited the calculated composition amount with the Sub Treasury at Hosakotc on 9-1-1962. It is also his case that he had made an application to the Tax Officer, viz., The Regional Transport Officer of the locality, on or about the same day The application is not traceable It is also stated that during that period when the Act had not been in force for much length of time, having come into force on 1-10-1961, there was some doubt about the exact procedure to he followed. Therefore, one need not be surprised ifupon investigation it is actually found that beyond depositing the money with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1967CriLJ1422
ORDERAhmed Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioners were prosecuted before the City Magistrate, Mysore, for offences under Section 58 (b) of the Prohibition Act. They were convicted and each was sentenced under Section 58 (b) of the Prohibition Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months. In an appeal by the accused, the Sessions Judge, Mysore, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate and disallowed the appeal. It is against the order of the Sessions Judge that the accused have preferred this revision petition.2. It has been strenuously argued by Shri Sabeel, on behalf of the petitioner that the plea of guilt which has been recorded by the Magistrate is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the joint plea of both the accused has been recorded by the Magistrate and therefore this joint recording of the statement amounts to irregularity and thus vitiates the whole trial. His second con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1967]65ITR496(KAR); [1967]65ITR496(Karn); (1967)2MysLJ136
Narayana Pai, J. 1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 4,350 in the computation of the profits under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The relevant facts and circumstances are the following : The assessee was carrying on the business of plying lorries under the name and style of 'Chamundi Meenakshi Transport' till the end of the calendar year 1960. Her accounting year was also the calendar year. During the calendar year 1961, she would up her business, sold the three lorries which she possessed as well as all other business assets, goodwill, etc. By way of sale of the three lorries, she received a total consideration of Rs. 87,000. During the preceding years she had been allowed depreciation on these lorries in the course of computation of her business income. The total dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1968]21STC485(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. This matter arises out of an old assessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The petitioner's complaint is that the original Assessing Authority who expressly purported to act under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act has committed the error of rejecting a portion of the return. Both the first Appellate Authority as well as the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal have held that there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioner. Hence this revision petition. 2. Section 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, deals with submission of returns and completion of assessments. Sub-section (1) relates to submission of returns. Sub-section (2) reads : 'If the Collector is satisfied without requiring the presence of a dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of the tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.' Sub-section (3) says that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant32; AIR1968Mys32; (1967)2MysLJ77
(1) The architect of this litigation is a disingenuous defendant 1 who executed two agreements of sale in favour of two different persons. One of them was an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the other was in favour of defendant 2. But before he executed a sale deed in favour of defendant 2, he delivered possession to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for a permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 from disturbing his possession, and during the pendency of the suit he obtained temporary injunction. It is alleged that after service of the temporary injunction on defendant 1,she executed a sale deed in favour of defendant 2. Then defendant 2 was impleaded as a supplemental defendant.(2) The Court of first instance recorded a finding that possession was delivered to the plaintiff when an agreement of sale was executed in his favour, and that finding was affirmed by the appellate court. But the decree for permanent injunction made ...
Tag this Judgment!